Agnew v. State
| Decision Date | 25 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 12-13-00181-CR,12-13-00181-CR |
| Parties | NICKY CHARUNE AGNEW, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Nicky Charune Agnew appeals his conviction for possession of between four and two hundred grams of cocaine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant raises six issues on appeal. We affirm.
Appellant was driving his vehicle in the left lane of eastbound Interstate 20 in Smith County, Texas. Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Jonathan Peters was traveling in the same lane behind Appellant. Peters flashed his patrol vehicle's high beam headlights at Appellant to signal to him to move his vehicle out of the left lane to allow Peters to pass, but Appellant failed to oblige. Instead, Appellant slowed down. Peters initiated a traffic stop based on Appellant's driving in the left lane when not passing another vehicle.
When Peters engaged his patrol vehicle's light bar to indicate to Appellant that he needed to pull over, Appellant initially allowed his vehicle to drift farther to the left toward the median. But Appellant eventually pulled over to the right side of the interstate. As Appellant slowed his vehicle, Peters noticed that one of Appellant's brake lights was inoperable.
Peters made contact with Appellant. He obtained Appellant's driver's license and proof of insurance and instructed Appellant to exit the vehicle. Peters noticed that Appellant had asmall bag in his back seat that appeared to contain only two or three items of clothing. Peters further observed that Appellant was acting nervously. Peters told Appellant that he was giving him a warning citation, but took note that Appellant's nervous behavior persisted.
Peters asked Appellant if he had a job, and Appellant answered that he worked for a commercial cleaning company. Peters also asked Appellant about the purpose of his trip, and Appellant answered that he was traveling to visit family in Kilgore, Texas, for two to three days. Peters doubted the veracity of Appellant's stated purpose of his trip for two reasons. First, Peters stopped Appellant during the work week, and Peters believed that a janitor working for a commercial cleaning company would be working on weeknights and could not miss that many days of work. Second, the clothing Peters observed in the back seat of Appellant's vehicle appeared to him to be insufficient for a two or three day trip.
Peters determined that Appellant had no outstanding warrants and completed the warning citation for Appellant. But Peters suspected nonetheless that Appellant was committing a crime. Peters asked Appellant if there was anything illegal in his vehicle. Appellant answered, "No," but looked away and smiled as he answered. Peters requested permission to search Appellant's vehicle. Appellant initially avoided directly answering Peters's request, but ultimately declined to give his consent to the search. In response, Peters requested that a K-9 Unit come to the scene.
Deputy Mark Waters of the Smith County Precinct 5 constable's office and his trained drug dog, Cros, arrived at the scene several minutes later. According to Waters, Cros gave a positive alert that drugs were in Appellant's vehicle. As a result of Cros's positive alert, Peters and other officers then on the scene began their search. During their search, the officers found a nonfactory compartment in Appellant's vehicle, which contained a sizeable quantity of crack cocaine. Appellant was placed under arrest.
Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between four and two hundred grams of cocaine and pleaded "not guilty." The indictment further alleged that Appellant had been convicted of two prior felonies. Appellant filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court denied.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant "guilty" as charged. Following a trial on punishment, the jury found the enhancement allegations to be"true" and assessed Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for life. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because Peters unlawfully extended the traffic stop. In his second issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress based upon the unreliability of the K-9 Unit.
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated standard of review. Hubert v. State, 312 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 327 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Shepherd v. State, 273 S.W.3d 681, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We give almost total deference to a trial court's determination of historical facts, especially if those determinations turn on witness credibility or demeanor, and review de novo the trial court's application of the law to facts not based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). When deciding a motion to suppress evidence, a trial court is the exclusive trier of fact and judge of the witnesses' credibility. Maxwell v. State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Accordingly, a trial court may choose to believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness's testimony. See State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
When a trial court does not make express findings of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and assume the trial court made implicit findings of fact that support its ruling as long as those findings are supported by the record. Lujan v. State, 331 S.W.3d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Therefore, the prevailing party is entitled to "the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence." State v. Castleberry, 332 S.W.3d 460, 465 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Since all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, we are obligated to uphold its ruling on a motion to suppress if that ruling was supported by the record and was correct under any theory of law applicable to the case. Ross, 32 S.W.3d at 856; Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 327; State v. Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
A routine traffic stop closely resembles an investigative detention. Powell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 369, 375 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd); see also United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506 (5th Cir. 2004). Because an investigative detention is a seizure that implicates the United States and Texas Constitutions, the traffic stop must be reasonable. U.S. CONST. amend. IV; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9; Francis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). To determine the reasonableness of an investigative detention, we conduct the inquiry set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio to determine (1) whether the officer's action was justified at its inception and (2) whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that initially justified the interference. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968); Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
Under the first part of the inquiry, an officer's reasonable suspicion justifies an investigative detention. Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 242-43. Specifically, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is occurring or has occurred. Id. at 244 (citing Garza v. State, 771 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). An officer has reasonable suspicion to detain a person if he has specific, articulable facts that, combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him reasonably to conclude that the person detained is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. State v. Elias, 339 S.W.3d 667, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). This is an objective standard. Id. Thus, when an officer has a reasonable basis for suspecting that a person has committed an offense, the officer may legally initiate an investigative stop. See Powell, 5 S.W.3d at 376 (citing Drago v. State, 553 S.W.2d 375, 377-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)).
Under the second part of the inquiry, the "investigative stop can last no longer than necessary to effect the purpose of the stop." Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The issue is "whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant." Id. at 64-65 (quoting United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685-86, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1569, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985)). With regard to a traffic stop, an officer can conduct a license and warrants check. Id. at 63. An officer also may ask the driver to exit the vehicle. See Strauss v. State, 121 S.W.3d 486, 491 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. ref'd).
An investigative stop that continues longer than necessary to complete the purpose of the stop is permitted if additional facts provide a reasonable suspicion of another crime or possible crime. Green v. State, 256 S.W.3d 456, 462 (Tex. App.-Waco 2008, no pet.). If a valid traffic stop evolves into an investigative detention for a drug related offense so that a canine sniff can take place, reasonable suspicion is necessary to prolong the detention. Id. We examine the totality of the circumstances to determine the reasonableness of a temporary detention. Curtis v. State, 238 S.W.3d 376, 380-81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
While reasonable suspicion allows an officer to temporarily detain someone, the officer must act...
To continue reading
Request your trial